Leaderboard

Bigfoot exist. Bigfoot hoaxes exist. The will and fortitude of science and the government to acknowledge that Bigfoot exists, does not exist at present,

So, only people on these forums who believe as you do have the ability to perform critical thinking? If that is your thinking, that is an enormous amount of hubris.

OS, Ill help you out even....... Thanks bud!

OK, I tried peeling back the layers of this onion. What I found is questionable at best. The domain name 100bigfootnights.com is hidden behind a proxy service based in Scottsdale AZ. All listings I could find for the author have no bio info at all, and no listed city of residence for the author. One site I ran across that was doing a review of the book said that the author was located in Southern California, but they gave no verification of that statement. This, along with all of the identical reviews from different screen names leaves me to believe it is a work of fiction. You just don't go through that much trouble to hide your tracks if you are legit. I looked into Vegas Pulse LLC, which is listed as their publisher. These two books, volumes 1 and 2 (soon to be three) are the only books that have been published by this publisher. Here is their Nevada licensing info: http://www.nevadacorporates.com/corp/50640.html It appears to be one of those dummy store fronts that are at a Mail Boxes Ect. type of store fronts. It's all perfectly legal in Nevada, but is shady as hell in the business world. This all looks to be a well cloaked fictional effort to me.

Nakani Critical thinking is not a bad thing , not all ! . We all do it when some one is reporting some thing strange that we do not understand. It is human a human thing. The problem I have is that you have singled out certain members to push a point. By nature we are all critical thinkers that have developed a skill to use this as a way to survive.( Now think about that for a moment ) If we have developed this skill for our survival or to intrepid reports then what makes you not think that they have not misled you. Sure you can see it from a different perspective, but they were not there. It is like the PGF, Patty looks like nothing to what I saw and I doubt that it could be real. But certain features in the face and within the muscles tells me that is real. There was a track way, similar to track ways that I have found. Prints that are at least 24" long with a width of 6" - 8" across, again I found similar. So with the exception of the creature not being the same as my sighting. Is this what critical thinking is about. By Definition Critical thinking is : Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. So in a way there is not one particular group of people who are more in critical thinking then others since we are all in our own way as humans critical thinkers. Should we not be if we are to prove these creatures to exist.

Excellent thread, Bonehead. I just hope it can remain civil so that both sides can make their cases, although I'm afraid that there will be no conclusive cases made as things stand at the moment. I personally believe it's possible for the creature to exist. My own mother claims to have seen one, and she's one of the most honest and reliable people I know. I, myself, have had some very strange circumstances to occur that I can't explain - Cries and growls I'm unable to explain, an incident where I experienced a strange fluttering (for lack of a better term) in my right ear during a dark night - both in Davidson Co., NC. There's also been a strange footprint find in Johnston Co., NC in the crawl space of a home under construction (I also had a sighting at this location, although I've not shared it publicly for some very personal reasons). All of these things lead me to believe that the creature does indeed exist. Note my use of the word "believe." Then there are the reports, which have always fascinated me, especially when you consider that they are not only numerous, but are put forth by people that don't have anything to gain by speaking out about what they saw. In fact, many have a lot to lose - Careers, as an example. While I admit that there are more than likely some bozos that are attention seekers that are willing to make up some of these reports, there has to be a number of the reports that are accurate based on statistics alone. I feel that all of them can't be true, but all of them can't be false, either. This leads me to make the following commentary based on logic - or my perception of logic - in spite of my experiences and my opinion stated above: I can present little evidence to justify my belief(s) from either side of the spectrum. Yes, I have footprint images, but I wasn't present when the print was made. Just because I found it doesn't mean that a Bigfoot made it. I've heard the sounds and experienced a strange event, but I didn't see what caused them. My mother witnessed something. Although I believe her, she's not Marlon Perkins, so she could have misidentified a known creature, although I feel it's unlikely. She's not stupid, but I have to remain open to the fact that she could have been mistaken. Like I said - I believe the creature could exist. However, evidence from myself or someone else that shares the interest is severely lacking. If/when evidence becomes available to emphatically prove its existence, nobody will be happier than I'll be. Yet I cannot jump on the "Bigfoot lives" bandwagon unless and until proof is provided. I already believe that it could based on reports and what I consider to be circumstantial evidence. Nobody wants the creature to be real more than I do. Many here probably don't believe this, but it's true. But I require evidence, as I feel that any rational individual should. Unfortunately, there are many that take a request for evidence (proof?) as an attack on their character. However, it's my belief that if you make claims, and dogmatically defend them without evidence,you've already assaulted your own character. Although it's fine to believe something, as I myself do, you have to base reality on facts, not a passionate belief. Prove it to me, yourself, and the world. I can't seem to find the time or resources to do it, so I'm rooting for those of you that can. Photos, video, DNA evidence, or a slab monkey would all be helpful on differing levels. Obviously, the slab monkey would shed all doubts, IMO.

There's actually a lot of physical evidence. It's just not the kind we want- biological.

My last personal visual was early Oct 2013, so less than 2 years. I've gotten reports from people I know and consider credible of sightings within the last 3 weeks. If you're thinking extinct, I see no evidence for it and sufficient evidence against it to dismiss it. I'm editing to address a couple other things ... DNA testing ... given the expense of DNA testing in the past, they didn't proceed with testing once something appearing to be contamination appeared. There are certain segments of DNA used for species identification. If BF is even relatively close to us, they would probably show positive for enough of those that contamination would be SUSPECTED and further expensive testing discontinued. Other segments of DNA maybe very different from ours would never be tested because of the preliminary results. This was especially true when nobody really thought BF could be anything but some kind of bipedal gorilla. Today, with all sorts of different ideas about how close the could be to us bantered around, hopefully if the sample provider is confident, they will pay the lab to proceed with testing. In a sense, both sides are right and both sides are wrong. What we need, if we're going to rely on DNA testing is a sample someone truly believes in enough to see testing through to the end regardless of the initial appearance that it is contaminated. Existence has not been proven by science but there is enough evidence to warrant more serious investigation than seems to have been done. There are masters and doctoral theses just waiting to be written on THE PROCESS if not the results. I really wish I were 20 again ... MIB

Answer to OP: Possibly. I do believe BobbyO, 1980, Sal and a few others who say they have seen a BF, but I still find the whole idea of there being a 7 foot hairy creature running around in the woods undiscovered... hard to believe. I guess that makes me a skeptical proponent

I've never thought of a skeptic to be a total non-believer. I've always thought of it as someone who has doubt in mind, but doesn't outright reject it. The possibility is left open- some people being more optimistic than others. Being skeptical is just being cautious and not taking things at face value- especially in a field where the history has been plagued with hoaxing and liars. Then there's the scofftic or denialist- the downright rejection of any possibility. Some are more cynical about it than others. Some people on the forum don't see the distinction between any of the above, or don't want to. It's a 'with us or against us' attitude. I don't know how many times I've been called a scofftic even though I've demonstrated for years that I'm open to existence.

Mostly the problem exists because term "skeptic" has been appropriated and misused/perverted by a certain group of self-named "free thinkers".

Homo Elusus - Elusive Man From Wiktionary: "ēlūsus m ‎(feminine ēlūsa, neuter ēlūsum); first/second declension deceived, tricked, fooled, having been deceived escaped, avoided, evaded, eluded, having been evaded mocked, jeered, ridiculed, having been ridiculed" Bigfoot, by definition, are hominids. Hominids are intelligent. Logically, an extant hominid coexisting with mankind must have coexisted with mankind throughout our mutual development. Logically, an extant hominid that has coexisted with mankind for millennia, must develop survival strategies that enable it to either compete with or avoid us. Lack of success in doing so = extinction. If one were to define what characteristics a surviving megafauna hominid (assume a descendant of Homo Erectus/Homo Heidelbergensis) would require in order to successfully coexist with mankind, one would come close to building a bigfoot from scratch. Elusiveness would be essential. Technology would be a liability; providing hard, lasting, indisputable forensic evidence/artifacts of their presence. Physical power and prowess would be required to offset a lack of technology. Intelligence, applied within these boundary conditions, would be a prerequisite. Sticking with documented characteristics that are exhibited by known creatures in nature, including ourselves (such as the skills possessed by the best special operations soldiers, but applied full time to the point that they are innate, reflexive, and define the creature), one could assemble a set of natural skills that, collectively, are not supernatural, but do add up to a sum that is effectively preternatural. By this logic, a creature such as bigfoot can exist, and is less improbable than one might want to believe. Still, such a creature would inevitably come into contact with mankind, resulting in both modern reports and a body of folklore extending back into antiquity. These exist. Yet, as a species, we must also somehow prevent our species from collectively pursuing evidence and reports of bigfoot in order for bigfoot to coexist with us without interference and genocidal conflict. Enter the Subjective Skeptic: An objective skeptic analyzes facts without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of existence - a subjective skeptic acts upon prejudice, insisting that something cannot be, devoting himself primarily to the refutation of evidence and fact. Subjective skeptics, confronted with a mounting body of evidence, default to a Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil strategy. This is the role that subjective skeptics within our species fulfill. They enable bigfoot to survive in a world otherwise dominated by mankind by forestalling our species. Oddly, subjective skepticism, considered today by subjective skeptics to be based in the (mis)application of the scientific method, has its origins in religion over the millennia covering the mutual existence of mankind and bigfoot (I'm going to try to stay within the forum rules here by staying as objective and general as possible). In the competition between ideologies, if a deity (considered to be good) were to create mankind (perhaps in its own image), then a competing extant hominid must have been created by something else, something competing with and different from the accepted deity. Something evil. Dogmatically, acceptance of the existence of a competing hominid inherently confers the power of creation on the competing entity (defined as evil), potentially placing it on a equal footing with the accepted deity. Therefore, the acceptance of the existence of the competing hominid, and the competing hominid itself would, by necessity, be considered evil. So Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil, becomes the doctrine of Hear no Bigfoot, See no Bigfoot, Speak no Bigfoot that we observe over the centuries, and today (cloaked by dogma misrepresented as science) in subjective skeptics. This also explains the motivation of some subjective skeptics. To preserve their own belief systems by striving against others.

BFFers, I'd like to address the "tracks" reported to Cliff Barackman and the BFRO near Elbe, WA. I afforded the individual involved a lengthy period of time (five months) to do the right thing, and fully disclose his involvement with the event. That hasn't happened yet. Moreover, the individual involved has continued to insist (privately) that he had absolutely no involvement with the event in question. His denial of involvement has driven people to question my initial statements and assertions. Initially, I granted the person involved a chance to admit his involvement privately to the people who were the most affected by his actions; the people who invested personal time and resources to his claims. The guilty party never did so, and still continues to insinuate that I had no real evidence against him. Here's the deal, folks: The first report regarding the track line was submitted in email form to Cliff Barackman, which was forwarded to the BFRO six hours later by the same source. The email address was "davepmorrison@...", but curiously the name signed to the email was "David Morris"; a small (but interesting) discrepancy. I immediately started "sleuthing" this individual in an effort to find out more about them via their online presence. Essentially, the vast majority of the people who submit reports, emails, and phone calls to the organization have an online presence. Some people have left huge amounts of information online, and some very little; but in the vast majority of instances it's very easy to verify who a person is, where they live, their means of employment, etc. I quickly found that the email address provided wasn't linked to any social media or website whatsoever; no Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, MySpace, etc., etc. Moreover, there were no "Dave Morrison", "Dave P Morrison", "David Morrison", "Dave Morris", "David Morris" matches which in any way "fit the bill" (geographically and otherwise) for this individual. Hitting that dead end was fairly concerning, because I can almost always find corroborating information about a person in a short amount of time. When I couldn't locate any information about this person, a huge red flag was raised. A few days later, I logged into FLATS (the internal BFRO reports database) and saw that the individual had also submitted a report via the BFRO Report Form. He included that his name was "Dave Morrison" (as opposed to "Morris" and included the same email address. Luckily for us, FLATS records the IP address of every report submission. That gave me a new clue to go on, and I immediately cross-referenced it with the IP address that the original email to Cliff was sent from. It was a match, which means that the same person submitted the initial email and the report three days later. Cliff also sent me another email that the reporting party had sent him, and it came from the same IP address as well. Unfortunately, you can't just Google the owner of an IP address. Various places online will display user's IP addresses (like certain forums, online email lists, etc.), but you'd really have to know where to look, and who you're looking for. Luckily, one of the places that I looked into displayed the IP addresses of the posters. It provided me with the poster's real name and username, and gave me a whole new lead to follow. A few minutes on Google revealed that this person was very involved in the online bigfoot community, and was an ardent skeptic. I recognized his username immediately, and knew that if he was the one who submitted the first reports that something was VERY wrong with the track line. I immediately called Cliff and Scott to fill them in. Derek called within minutes, and I brought him up to speed as well. I enlisted the help of a BFRO member that I work with often with locating information online and asked him to help me find more instances online of this same IP connected to the same individual (username/real name, etc.). Within a few hours, we had collected multiple examples of this person's IP address from various locations on the web. I also contacted veteran researcher Daniel Perez, who had corresponded with this individual before, and asked him if he would forward me the raw source data from the emails that the individual had sent him. He did, and the source data of the two emails matched the IP address. Daniel helped me tremendously by sending me those emails, and I am very thankful that he did. In other words, we now had irrefutable proof that the original email and FLATS report were sent in by a guy who is a borderline fanatical skeptic, and who is a very active member of the online bigfoot community. That, and the guy only lives 47 miles from Elbe. An exhaustive reading of his online posts revealed more information. This guy has been working on creating a life-sized Patty replica in his workshop in an effort to demonstrate that the PGF is fake. He describes (in detail) multiple pairs of fake feet that he has fabricated as part of this experiment. Here are a few quotes from him: June 2012 - "By the way, footprints are easy to fake, require little commitment in time and materials and effort. Which might account for their continued popularity, who knows. Footprints are an easy hoax." August 2012 - "Why spend hours looking for online videos when any one of us can test it simply and easily. It does mean going outside for a while, but it's summer and not too hostile out doors right now. Make a set of fake feet, 14-15 inches long, strap them on so that the toes stick out a ways in the front, and then walk around a bit, walk fast, see how well you adapt and lift your feet. To match the challenge, I'll do the same thing here in a few minutes. Again. Reason I say "again" is because I have already done this experiment. I'm not just sitting here at the keyboard speculating about how people walk barefoot, or with big shoes on or any of that. I like to have fun, play a bit, and enjoy experimentation to test out various ideas. Which is why I say that people lift their feet higher with big shoes on, because that's just what they (we) (I) do." And the most incriminating quote of all: March 2012 - "So how would one explain spayed toes in some faked bigfoot prints? Non-wooden stompers. I'm not going to say right now that there are no bigfoots, or that all prints are fake. However, I will say that making pliable, naturally behaving fake feet is not some rocket science... I have a pair of bigfoot feet I made from dock flotation foam, a sort of shiny plastic closed cell foam that is flexible, firm, easily carved with a knife and shaped with a scraper. Paint them with latex or acrylic paint, and they do everything a real foot would do in terms of print making." Once I had all of that information, it was undeniable that this individual was responsible for the Elbe tracks. After numerous attempts to get the perpetrator to cooperate, I sent him this email on October 3rd: "Axxxx, I've tried to avoid writing you this email, but given your last few posts on the BFF and JREF, I suppose it's time that I contact you about your claims. Here's the bottom line: I have irrefutable proof that you sent the first email to Cliff Barackman, the secondary email to the BFRO, and also submitted a report to the BFRO database. Myself and others compiled this proof and shared it with several researchers (12 to be exact, including Derek) on September 26th. I know that you're very worried about people finding out that you were involved (in any capacity), and you'd prefer not to have your name associated with this. Truthfully, it was never my intention to publicly "out" you. If I had wanted to, I could've done that immediately on the BFRO website and the BFF. It would've looked something like this: 'The investigation of the initial report led us to irrefutable proof that Axxxx Sxxxxxxx AKA "Tontar" was responsible for using a pseudonym and submitting the initial reports regarding the trackway. That evidence has cast doubt over the entire event, and as such, we can't endorse its legitimacy." There would be nothing ethically wrong with releasing that statement either, as it is completely true (unlike the majority of the things you've been posting since the "tracks" were discovered). Obviously, I don't know if you were responsible for faking the tracks themselves, or if you had help from other individuals, etc. What I do know is that you were behind those emails and the BFRO report. Anyone who researches your public claims would also be convinced that you fabricated those tracks. Whether you faked those tracks, or merely reported them for someone else, people will see those statements and assume with certainty that you did it, and that you've been experimenting with fake tracks since March of this year. Many people will also interpret the act as malicious. Maybe you were conducting a legitimate experiment with stompers for your PG recreation. Perhaps you took those things out on a test drive and realized that they looked pretty good. Whatever the reason, things certainly changed when you created an email address and a pseudonym and sent reports and emails to Cliff and the BFRO. That's the part that people will undoubtedly get the most upset with; your desire to deceive others. You lied, plain and simple. You are continuing to lie. You are trying to insinuate that others are responsible, when you know exactly who is truly responsible. Derek Randles is a friend of mine, and I refrained from handing over information to others about your involvement because Derek thought that you would cooperate with him based on good faith. He told me that the two of you had communicated, and had intended to meet. Meanwhile, I continue to see the things that you post in public venues about the researchers' "inabilities" to identify who "did the deed". We've known who "did the deed" for over a week. Every day that we have kept your name confidential should be viewed as a gift. Every day that we haven't done our due diligence and released that information has been an opportunity for you to be honest with the people who deserve to know the truth about this. Derek thought you would. For a moment, I thought you would, too. Instead, you're continuing to lie about the incident, and constantly trying to shift the focus (and the blame) back on to the "researchers"; the very people whom you had hoped to fool. I gave you the chance to admit it on the BFF when I insinuated that you knew exactly where those tracks were before anyone else found them. Instead, you tried to divert attention away from you by concocting a sarcastic response, and then followed it up with a response implying that it was probably a bigfoot proponent who did it! I am tired of giving you opportunities to do the right thing. I am pretty sure the other researchers and investigators are, too. Matt Pruitt" After sending that email, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Tontar about "doing the right thing" and working directly with the people that were affected. It was a nice conversation, and one that left me feeling that Tontar would do the responsible thing and be honest. That still hasn't happened, and since then, many people have questioned my investigative integrity for pointing a finger at Tontar. I have many, many screenshots of all of this information. I can release all of that information if need be. I am hoping (once again) that Tontar will fully disclose the extent of his involvement with this event. His posts about Bill Munns' recent violation of trust related to a different event were what prompted me to finally post this. Tontar's words were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It's pretty clear that he never intended to disclose the truth to anyone. Disclosing the truth was always my intention. I only delayed it because I truly felt that I was doing the right thing by allowing him to divulge his side of the story in a way that allowed him some sort of control over the way his story was presented. He sent the emails and the initial report. Do the math, folks. Tontar is responsible for the fabricated tracks at Elbe.